@jinhale Remember that nature is complex so examine end results too, not just hypothetical mechanisms to achieve better nutrition. For example, the above second reference demonstrates just one interaction between plants and fungi that is influenced by herbicides and greatly affects nutrition.
Trust science not hype: organic is better; the FDA is bought/biased.
Yay good for us that we have inefficient agriculture for snobs don't giving a damn thing about world starvation. Well let me tell you something. GE crops also don't need synthetic pesticides- they synthesise the ones aimed only to bugs. GE crops don't need that much fertilizer. And most important GE crops give much more nutrients per acre than organic food. And humanity needs all the food it can get.
@TheMalar "The world currently produces enough food for everybody, but many people do not have access to it" fao.org/hunger/en/
"Organic farming can lead to increased food production – in many cases a doubling of yields has been seen""the average crop yield increase was even higher for these projects: 116 per cent increase for all African projects and 128 per cent increase for the projects in East Africa" unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted200715_en.pdf
@TheMalar "Today's scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live- especially in unfavorable environments.""To date agroecological projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80% in 57 developing countries, with an average increase of 116% for all African projects." srfood.org/index.php/en/component/content/article/1174-report-agroecology-and-the-right-to-food
@TheMalar "Organic farming can yield up to three times as much food as conventional farming on the same amount of land.""in developed countries, yields were almost equal on organic and conventional farms. In developing countries, food production could double or triple using organic methods" sciencedaily"dot"com/releases/2007/07/070711134523.htm
@TheMalar The huge majority of GE crops were specifically designed to be sprayed with a pesticide! Even farmers using Bt crops still generally use pesticides because the Bt crops only target one or a few pests and not all of the pests that attack the crop. In fact when cotton farmers in China didn't use pesticides on Bt cotton varieties they had mirid bug outbreaks. Some GE crops need more fertilizers like additional Mn for RR soy crops, etc. Organic generally has higher nutrients.
@myndy86 I don't mean they need no pesticides but far less, because they ussualy target the most destructive pests. And even if it takes mor fertilizer per acre of GE crops it is still less fertilizer per ton of food, because GE crops give gigher biomass. And if organic food have mor nutrients it is not the fault of modifications but using more organic matter for fertilizer.
@TheMalar For RR crops, glyphosate application may also reduce nutrients as well as reduce biomass. I also wouldn't consider most GE crops "food crops". Varieties of Bt corn are primarily used for ethanol production, cattle feed and corn syrup, corn oil, etc. Cotton and Canola varieties are primarily used for oils, Sugar beets used for sugar, etc. Most GE crops are "food additive crops". I wouldn't consider them food anymore than I would consider table salt a food.
@myndy86 Because you look at the most popular ones like corn. But what about golden rice or tomatos? And if using glyphosate would reduce production, why would people use it?
@TheMalar Glyphosate is used primarily for convenience, rather than use other more manual methods of weeding. Most countries don't use GE tomato anymore, they are rarely used. Golden Rice is still largely experimental, it's not widely available commercially. Also Golden Rice is more about increased nutrition than it is production and there are numerous conventionally bred(used in organic) nutrient enhanced crops like Orange Maize, Orange Sweet Potato, High Beta Carotene Tomato, etc.
@myndy86 Exactly, because other weeding methods cost more, using only one pesticide is much cheaper, and we need cheap food. But we are talking about countries that don't grow crops rich in beta carotens. Milions of children go blind because their diet has not enough beta carotens in it, but they eat rice as the main source of calories. Not all people afford functional food.
@TheMalar In poor countries using glyphosate costs more because they don't have easy access to it and labor is cheaper. Also paying people to weed creates jobs and reduces poverty which is a main cause of hunger. All of the conventionally bred crops I mentioned in my last post were developed for use in poor countries. Many of the weeds you want to kill with glyphosate in poor countries, often have high levels of beta carotene, so manual weeding provides more jobs and more nutrients.
@myndy86 In poor countries farmers are to poor to afford hireing someone to weed for them. Using herbicides is still a better option for them. And paying for weedeng does not reduces poverty it creates it. Because you have to pay for the food, and we all need to buy food so all the economy suffers. So what? We will eat weeds to maintain our diet? How more does organic food costs? How does paying two times more for food reduces poverty and hunger?
@TheMalar Many people make about $1(U.S.) a day in poor countries, so it is significantly cheaper to pay labor than the cost of glyphosate in poor countries. Most jobs in poor countries are related agriculture, food processing etc. so the more money farmers make the better the economy. Organic is less expensive to produce(no expensive synthetic inputs, etc.) and sells for money(more profit), this creates more and better paying jobs which reduces poverty and reduces hunger.
@myndy86 So how that farmer that can bearly affor to feed himself can afford extra labor? And organic is not less expensive, if it was organic food would not be 2 times or 4 times more expensive. You seem to know nothing about the relations between demand, supply and the prices.
@TheMalar How can the farmer who can barely afford to feed himself afford glyphosate which is more expensive than labor in poor countries? Organic food costs more primarily because the demand is high and the supply is low, hence the higher price. Organic farmers in the U.S. had an estimated average net income of about $20k per farm per year higher than the all-farm figure. So poor countries should grow organic, so they make more profit and can hire labor and reduce poverty.
@TheMalar Let me give you an example of what I mean. In Northern Potosí, Bolivia organic fertilizer costs US$18/ha, which compares with the US$170/ha for an equivalent amount of inorganic fertilizer. That is just fertilizer, you want them to use synthetic pesticides, glyphosate, etc. If organic costs less to produce and sells for more, they can make the same profit from a farm half the size, and the wife could work the farm and the husband get another job, thus reducing poverty.
@catseye10000 Numerous peer reviewed studies suggest coffee reduces cancer risk about 30% on average. If you believe Penn and Teller, can you provide evidence that coffee has 1000 times more cancer risk than pesticide residue? You would have to post a peer reviewed study suggesting pesticide residue reduces cancer risk 30,000%. Do you realize how insane the anti-organic claims in that video are? P&T are magicians, they get paid to trick you!
first off she is right not to mention hot,,,,,but duhhhh u dumb asses if u use your sewage for fertilizer more than likely it will have chemicals in it from when u took a big dump from the mcdonalsd burger u ate . or the toilet bowl cleaner u forgot about,,,,,no filters will completely rid it free
Do your homework next time what a crappy video. I hope your aware that people have been using there sewage to fertilize their crops for hundreds if not thousands of years. Plus micro organisms. Some of the organisms like mycorrhiza take an extremely long time to break down nutrients. Like I said do your homework next time
@Byodawg Did sewage sludge hundreds or thousands of years ago contain prescription drugs, synthetic pesticides, heavy metals, industrial chemicals, etc.? Modern sewage sludge does! Many chemicals that get flushed down the toilet or go down a sewage drain are not filtered out by water treatment plants. Not to mention the infectious levels of bacteria, viruses, protazoa and helminths, plus parasitic worms, etc.
@myndy86 But when it comes down to I either have to pay my rent this month or buy organic food as would be the case for many people all over the world, it isn’t such a simple question to ask. This doesn’t even address the honesty of people. If I went to a local farmers market and asked if they only used organic pesticides, how would I know if they were lying or not? Surely nobody would use conventional farming then say they grew it organically to sell it for the inflated organic food prices.
@jambog82 I didn't say go to farmer's markets, I said go to farms, meaning certified organic farms. As I already mentioned I pay significantly less for most organic produce than I would for conventional in a supermarket. For my income in comparison to my family size, I am below poverty level in the U.S., so the extra savings of buying organic helps me pay my bills. Plus the money I will probably save from medical bills and lost wages from being sick, make organic a better choice.
@myndy86 There are no organic farms in my county, at least none that I could find. I could travel outside of my county but even if I saved money from buying from directly from the farmer, the cost in fuel alone to travel to the closest organic farm would not be worth it. Its easy to ask “How much is and extra 5 years worth?” if you have the money to afford it.
@jambog82 It may depend on where you live, but if there are no near-by farms, most cities have organic buyer's clubs that sell certified organic produce at discounted prices. If you live in a rural area and have access to land, you may consider growing some of your. I don't know where you live, but if you are willing to share that information with me, I would be more than happy to try to help you find organic farms or buyer's clubs, etc. and you can decide if it is worth it for you or not.
@myndy86 Anyway, I have wasted enough time on this discussion. Fact is even if you convinced me organic was healthier it wouldn’t matter because I couldn’t afford it. I can barely afford groceries as it is. I’m sure you will post some link on how organic is more affordable or some such non sense, but go to any grocery store. It isn’t. So excuse me while I go to work so I can buy my pesticide ridden, although affordable, groceries.
@jambog82 I actually generally pay less for organic produce than I would for most conventional produce. There are organic co-ops/buyer's clubs or you could go directly to the farm, especially farms that allow you to pick your own. Going to the farm cuts the farmer's packing and shipping costs and picking your own cuts the labor costs. I often pay about half the price for organic from the farm than the cost of the same conventional food in the supermarket.
@myndy86 While some organic foods may have higher vitamin or mineral content, it is by no means significantly higher. Yet organic food costs significantly more without providing significantly more health benefits. Videos like this only contribute to this scam, no matter how well intentioned they may be. Although you may completely agree with this video, if you can’t see that it is intentionally misleading then you are blind.
@jambog82 The vitamins and minerals are slightly higher per food, so if you eat all organic, those added nutrients will add up at the end of the day. Considering a large portion of people even in wealthy countries have several nutrient deficiencies, eating organic can potentially reduce or eliminate those deficiencies. The studies also suggest organically fed animals live longer, with less degenerative disease, etc. so how much is an extra 5-10 disease free years worth to you?
@myndy86 People seem to forget how good we actually have. For most of human history, people couldn’t even dream of how good we have it today, but yet we still find some way to complain about it.
@jambog82 There are legit complaints and if we continue to use conventional farming the way it has been used for the past 40 years or so, then we won't have it good at all. You also forget that conventional farming has caused massive environmental damage in order to provide the food and if we continue this yields will dramatically decrease in places and mass starvation will occur, organic should be used whenever possible to prevent this. UN report Save and Grow fao.org/ag/save-and-grow/
@myndy86 Frankly, I'm happy to live in a time and place where I have food everyday of my life and I know I will most likely live to be twice the age of people who lived a mere 150 years ago. And that’s regardless of it I eat organic foods or not. In fact I could shove my face with hamburgers, fries, and soda everyday of my life and STILL live longer than most people who lived 100 years ago.
@myndy86 You know, we could do this for months. The fact is for every source you cite for your point, I could cite an equally vetted source to counter it. It's a controversial issue and more research needs to be done. But that doesn't excuse this video from outright misleading people about the use of pesticides and fertilizers, which was my whole point of originally commenting.
@jambog82 The only thing is that you haven't cited any sources. I really don't think she is misleading people on purpose. Clearly organic uses fertilizers, even various legumes can take nitrogen from the air, which is a fertilizer. This is why it seems most likely that she meant to say "synthetic", because common knowledge is that organic uses fertilizer.
@jambog82 Your original comment was "Why are the hot girls always the stupid ones? Organic food is a scam lady." You didn't say anything about her saying organic doesn't use pesticides or fertilizers, etc. If your comment was something like "She is wrong about organic not using fertilizers and pesticides." then I doubt I would have replied, but you said "Organic food is a scam". This is what I mean by not going into enough detail, as you did it also.
@myndy86@myndy86 No, I haven’t cited any sources, but are you denying they exist? I have found many vetted ones that refute many of your claims. Just use google to find them, it wasn’t hard. And a scam is something that is misleading. Proponents of organic food do mislead people as this video demonstrates. Even one of your own sources said that organic or conventional diets can be equally healthy, yet organic proponents probably will never tell you this in my experience.
@jambog82 You are misinterpreting the statement "it seems, however, that despite any differences,a well-balanced diet can equally improve health regardless of its organic or conventional origin." Notice the wording IT SEEMS, they state "generalisation of the conclusions should be made with caution." they had little data at the time, but the data suggested "animal feeding experiments indicate that animal health and reproductive performance are slightly improved when they are organically fed."
@jambog82 Your argument was "for every source you cite for your point, I could cite an equally vetted source to counter it." I don't believe you can, the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed studies suggest organic food is generally more nutritious and/or healthier than conventional. I have never seen a peer reviewed study that looked a worldwide yields that suggests organic can not feed the world. The majority of studies suggest conventional farming is more environmentally harmful, etc.
@myndy86 I will email you a list of articles I found that counter many of your points. These are simply from basic google and bing searches. I'm sure if I wanted to invest the time in going to the library or accessing academic databases, I would find many more. The point is they are out there. Organic food isn't as clean cut of any issue as I think you think it is. It is complicated.
@jambog82 I appreciate the articles, but none of them were a peer reviewed study, just opinion pieces. Several of them are very biased, for example the first article said "The low yields on organic farms mean that to produce the same amount of food as conventional farms, more land is needed.", but it only looked at yields in parts of Europe and Australia and not the countries in Asia, Africa, etc. that have had huge yield increases with organic, so it's not a worldwide yield comparison.
@myndy86 She is defining the word organic to mean it is grown without pesticides or fertilizers. That is an incorrect definition of the word. She didn’t forget to use the word “synthetic” either. She repeatedly insinuates that pesticides are not used at all in organic farming. Maybe she is just deluded herself, but before producing a video with the purpose to sway people’s opinions, maybe you should make sure your facts are straight.
@myndy86 I didn’t say synthetic pesticides aren’t harmful. I basically said they haven’t been proven harmful yet but more research could prove them to be so in the future so you are just flat out putting words in my mouth there. And I said we could PROBABLY only produce 2/3…PROBABLY being the key word there, meaning I am stating an estimated opinion.
@jambog82 You said "The only one that did work was the unctad one. And none of the direct quotes you gave in that comment were actually in the pdf document." I PROVED to you that those quotes are in the document, but I didn't say you were a liar. You probably overlooked them, just like she probably forgot to say "synthetic" and forgot to mention that some countries do use sewage sludge in organic but countries like the U.S. do not allow it. You can't expect every detail in a 9 min video.
@myndy86 ...Even if you absolutely prove to me that organic farming is better, that doesn't excuse the fact that this video down right lies about how it works in order to "convert" people to their way of thinking. By all means, try to convince others that your viewpoint is correct. Just don't lie and spread false information to do it as this video clearly does.
@myndy86 Anyway, my whole point in even commenting in the first place was to point out how this video is lying. 1 minute into the video it states that organic farming DOESN"T USE pesticides or fertilizers. This is an outright lie. Organic farming uses organic pesticides and fertilizers. In fact SEWAGE SLUGE is considered an organic fertilizer (Although it is prohibited in the US, but such restrictions don't exist in all countries)...con't....
@jambog82 It depends on the country, in some countries organic doesn't allow pesticides. She may have also meant to say "synthetic" pesticides. You are correct that sewage sludge is permitted in some countries for organic, but her not going into every detail as she should have doesn't mean she is lying. You saying synthetic pesticides aren't harmful and organic can only feed 2/3 of the world isn't accurate and I didn't call you a liar.
@myndy86 For farmers who can't afford modern day synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, than yes, using methods such as field rotation and predatory insects is a good alternative. But for modern conventional farmers who live in wealthier countries where more technology is available, there is no substitute. You own source ever states this (see paragraph 2 on page vii in the unctad link). Why don't you try actually reading and understanding your sources instead of just quote mining from them?..cont
@jambog82 Organic performs better in areas with poor access to water and/or drought, which is the case in most poor countries. Read the whole study! "Organic farming leads to many improvements to the natural environment, including increased water retention in soils, improvements in the water table (with more drinking water in the dry season), reduced soil erosion combined with improved organic matter in soil leading to better carbon sequestration, and increased agro-biodiversity."
@jambog82 UNCTAD continued "As a result soils are healthier, are better able to hold water and are more stable, can sustain plant growth better and have a higher nutrient content. All this enables farmers to grow crops for longer periods, with higher yields and in marginal conditions."
Youtube doesn"t allow links type h t t p : / / w w w . in front of the links and change the "dot" to a . in some cases, or just type the quote from the study in Google and the study should come up.
@jambog82 I do understand the study, you said organic can only produce enough food to feed 2/3 of the world, the studies I quoted suggest organic has slightly lower or equal yields in wealthy countries and 80%-116% HIGHER yields in poor countries and areas with drought conditions etc. If you do the math that means organic can easily feed the world. Also, the quotes I gave were direct quotes from the pdf. I will find exactly what page and paragraph for you.
But let's say you are correct and pesticides are responsible for thousands of deaths a year. Should we stop using them and start using only organic farming? Probably not. If all farming was organic we could probably only produce 2/3 of the amount of food we can now, hence millions, hundreds of millions even would starve as a result. What is better? Thousands of people MAYBE getting cancer or millions definitely starving to death? It comes down to what is the lesser of two evils.
@jambog82 "Today's scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live- especially in unfavorable environments.""To date agroecological projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80% in 57 developing countries, with an average increase of 116% for all African projects." srfood.org/index.php/en/component/content/article/1174-report-agroecology-and-the-right-to-food
@jambog82 "Organic farming can lead to increased food production – in many cases a doubling of yields has been seen""the average crop yield increase was even higher for these projects: 116 per cent increase for all African projects and 128 per cent increase for the projects in East Africa"
@jambog82 "Organic farming can yield up to three times as much food as conventional farming on the same amount of land.""in developed countries, yields were almost equal on organic and conventional farms. In developing countries, food production could double or triple using organic methods" sciencedaily"dot"com/releases/2007/07/070711134523.htm
@jambog82 "there could be as many as 25 million agricultural workers in the developing world suffering an episode of poisoning each year" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2238694 This doesn't count cancer, developmental or reproductive affects that may be linked to pesticides. Thousands of deaths and millions of poisonings from synthetic pesticides(mostly organophosphates) already occur and most epidemics are from food. Most studies suggest organic can feed the world, without synthetic pesticides.
@myndy86 Well, I would investigate this further, but seeing as how none of you links to your sources actually exist I can't. Maybe you made a typo or maybe you just made them up I don't know. The only one that did work was the unctad one. And none of the direct quotes you gave in that comment were actually in the pdf document. That document is about how organic farming can help poor countries like Africa where farmers can't afford the technology needed for modern conventional farming...con't...
@jambog82 "Organic farming can lead to increased food production – in many cases a doubling of yields
has been seen" Is on page 11 the first senetnce in the last paragraph.
"the average crop yield increase was even higher for these projects: 116 per cent increase for all African projects and 128 per cent increase for the projects" Is on page 16 last sentence of the second paragraph. unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted200715_en.pdf
Again, your sources state that glyphosate could be "potentially carcinogenic". The key word being potentially. I could say anything is potentially carcinogenic. That doesn't make it actually carcinogenic. This is a hypothesis, not a fact. Yes, further research could prove them to in fact be carcinogenic, but IT HASN"T YET. And yes, I agree pregnant women shouldn't be spraying pesticides. But because a chemical is harmful to placental cells doesn't mean it is harmful to humans in general.
@jambog82 "Children with higher urinary dialkyl phosphate concentrations, especially dimethyl alkylphosphate (DMAP) concentrations, were more likely to be diagnosed as having ADHD.""CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the hypothesis that organophosphate exposure, at levels common among US children, may contribute to ADHD prevalence."
@jambog82 "In conclusion, we were able to demonstrate that an organic diet provides a dramatic and immediate protective effect against exposures to organophosphorus pesticides that are commonly used in agricultural production. We also concluded that these children were most likely exposed to these organophosphorus pesticides exclusively through their diet" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1367841/
@jambog82 [Current issues regarding organic food]., Rev Med Chir Soc Med Nat Iasi., Universitatea de Medicină si Farmacie "Ecological food is tastier and contains more essential amino-acids, vitamin C, and micro-nutriments than usual food" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16610189
@jambog82 [Better health with ecologic food?]. Universitetet i Oslo "organic foods compared to conventionally produced foods seem to have a higher content of antioxidants in plant products and a higher content of fat-soluble vitamins and omega-3 fatty acids in animal products. Animal studies (among them, on rabbits and chickens) show higher fertility and less morbidity in animals fed organically." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15195159
@jambog82 "Organic crops contain a significantly higher amount of certain antioxidants (vitamin C, polyphenols and flavonoids) and minerals, as well as have higher dry matter content than conventional ones.""there is a lower level of pesticide residues, nitrate and some heavy metal contaminations in organic crops compared to conventional ones." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17297755
@jambog82 From healthy soil to healthy food: an analysis of the quality of food produced under contrasting agricultural systems, University of Kassel "Studies under controlled experimental conditions show a clear advantage for staple food grown under biological/ecological farming conditions as compared to those from conventional farming methods."" lower undesirable (e.g. nitrates) and higher desirable (e.g. vit. C, trace elements) components are present." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3054635
@jambog82 IJFSN study Organic food: nutritious food or food for thought? A review of the evidence. Weight gain was greater in organically fed rats,mortality was lower at 9 weeks,incidence of degenerative diseases was lower. Lower mortality in organically fed rabbits. 2nd and 3rd generation rabbits from organically fed parents exhibited higher birth rates and more viable embryos. Infectious illnesses were less frequent in 2nd generation organically fed animals. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12907407
@jambog82 French government AFSSA"1/ organic plant products contain more dry matter and minerals (Fe, Mg); and contain more anti-oxidant micronutrients such as phenols and salicylic acid, 2/ organic animal products contain more polyunsaturated fatty acids""4/ 94–100% of organic food does not contain any pesticide residues, 5/ organic vegetables contain far less nitrates, about 50% less" agronomy-journal"dot"org/index.php?option=com_article&access=doi&doi=10.1051/agro/2009019&Itemid=129
@myndy86 I think it is funny how the same exact sources you use to argue against my point also prove my argument. For example, one of YOUR OWN sources states "existing evidence is inadequate to allow for valid conclusions" and "a well-balanced diet can equally improve health regardless of its organic or conventional origin" So your own sources say that an organic or conventional diet can be EQUALLY healthy! This, I remind you again is from your own source of information.
@jambog82 They have only pesticides in org.farming in some countries like urs
But saying org.food is a scam is false.There are pro-organic aswell as anti-organic scientests I have meet several from both sides. Its undecided if its better for the enviroment and a better long term solution,dont think anyone thinks its healthier though
Anyways doing like myndy who has no insight and no basic knowledge and links to a couple(out of several thousands)reports to prove her point is incredible retarded
@Uuuurk You are only talking to scientists in the agricultural field. In my fields of food and nutrition and physiology the majority of scientists do believe the evidence is in favor of organic being more nutritious and/or healthier.
@jambog82 You are reading a study from over a decade ago, when there was much less evidence, but the evidence that did exist was in favor of organic food being more nutritious/healthier. Read the conclusions from the more recent studies such as the AFSSA, now that hundreds of studies have been done in the last decade. Not my only sources, but one of the oldest souces I gave you, like I said read the more recent studies as well.
@myndy86 And so what an organic vegetable has SLIGHTLY more vitamin C in it. That's why they have vitamin supplements. And so what if organic foods has less pesticide residue. There is no scientific evidence current synthetic pesticides increase the chances of certain diseases. In fact the pesticides used in organic farming (Yes they do use pesticides) are often more harmful than the synthetic ones. Science may determine that infact organic food is significantly healthier for humans to eat......
@jambog82 there is no objective evidence to support the assertion that natural pesticide residues pose a hazard.""botanical insecticides tend to break down rapidly in the environment, are comparatively non-toxic, and are used by a relatively small fraction of growers" "Consequently, these substances are not expected to leave residues in foods." consumersunion. org/pub/core_food_safety/002312.html
@jambog82 there is no objective evidence to support the assertion that natural pesticide residues pose a hazard.""botanical insecticides tend to break down rapidly in the environment, are comparatively non-toxic, and are used by a relatively small fraction of growers" "Consequently, these substances are not expected to leave residues in foods." consumersunion"dot" org/pub/core_food_safety/002312.html
@jambog82 There is plenty of scientific evidence that current synthetic pesticides/herbicides are linked to various illnesses, diseases, reproductive problems, etc. "Roundup exposure may affect human reproduction and fetal development in case of contamination." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17486286 "Glyphosate formulations induce apoptosis and necrosis in human umbilical, embryonic, and placental cells" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19105591
@jambog82 "glyphosate is toxic to human placental JEG3 cells within 18 hr with concentrations lower than those found with agricultural use""We conclude that endocrine and toxic effects of Roundup, not just glyphosate, can be observed in mammals." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15929894 "Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19539684
@jambog82 "Reported use of several individual pesticides was associated with increased NHL incidence, including organophosphate insecticides coumaphos, diazinon, and fonofos, insecticides chlordane, dieldrin, and copper acetoarsenite, and herbicides atrazine, glyphosate, and sodium chlorate. A subanalysis of these "potentially carcinogenic" pesticides suggested a positive trend of risk with exposure to increasing numbers." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1740618/
“Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally-produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority.” Dr Dangour: London School for Hygiene and Tropical health.
The misconceptions about organic is that food is grown without any chemicals, whether they be fertilizers, pesticides, or insecticides. This, is not true. Standards set by the USDA's National Organic Program allow producers to use a substantial list of "approved" synthetic substances to still call their products organic. Organic food has a huge profit margin and zealous fans. They are so into this fad that they’ll pay for the bragging rights of doing something good.
@mik99D On Jul 13, in these comments I posted peer reviewed studies and UN reports suggesting organic farming could feed the current world population on the same amount of agricultural land currently used. Can you provide a peer reviewed study stating organic can only feed half the world`s population? The english language has more than one definition for the word organic, your definition applies to chemistry, when applied to farming, organic has a different definition.
Sorry Natalie. When you list the 'toxins' you fail to say that ALL those compounds are found in SOIL. The amounts are small same as in the refuse. If everyone went 'organic' 1/2 the world would starve to death. And Organic means "made with chains of carbon atoms" You are a prize turkey. I'm sorry but all your statements are not backed up with data. You may get pesticides from food but that could be 1 part in a billion.
Sorry Natalie. When you list the 'toxins' you fail to say that ALL those compounds are found in SOIL. The amounts are small same as in the refuse. If everyone went 'organic' 1/2 the world would starve to death. And Organic means "made with chains of carbon atoms" You are a prize turkey. I'm sorry but all your statements are not backed up with data. You may get pesticides from food but that could be 1 part in a billion.
Irradiated foods are not radioactive. It's true some vegetables loose some flavor when they are exposed to radiation, most of them go trough well and it is a very good way to preserve food and can kill harmfull E. Coli bacteria.
Synthetic fertilizers do not destroy these microorganisms unless tyou use a lot of them. Organic fertilizers contain the same chemicals as the synthetic ones, composting is good but synthetic IS NOT EVIL people! Think rationally.
Come on, this is not rational thinking, this is faith base belief. These arguments are very poor!
Pesticides: There are a lot of them, not all of them are toxic, not all of them are safe, we regulate this things people! Yes they are chemicals, but all is chemistry, every piece of matter is composed of chemical molecules and atoms.
Fetilizers: You'll seriously argue against synthetic fertilizers naming a one time event? Once again, there are regulations we can make to prevent this.
@sagitta242 I can only speak for myself but I would expect to live about 10 years longer than the average conventional food eater and have less chance of degenerative disease, less illness, better reproduction ability, and I expect my children and grandchildren to have the same benefits as well. These expectations are based on the huge majority of animal studies that suggest these benefits as you can see in my comments on Jun 26.
"No radiation used at all" is impossible. Light is a form of radiation. So, any plant grown is the product of "use of" radiation. Likewise, the implication she makes, though not stated, is that food that has been exposed to radiation must be radioactive, which is plainly false. Then she claims, without providing evidence, that exposure to radiation strips food of vitamins.
@tehatemachine You have no idea what you are talking about. You could not even spell antioxidant, so I can not expect you to even understand the peer reviewed studies I posted. Space shuttle fuel has nothing to do with organic food, you are just attempting to change the subject because you have no argument against organic.
@Bllackguard666 I gave you peer reviewed review studies from independent scientists as well as statements from the USDA and the french government's food safety agency. None of what I quoted came from any business. You just believe whatever big business tells you and you call science bs, LMAO!
Uhh...organic farmer DO use pesticides and hormones, stupid, liberal, moron. Look it up. Your "organic" *cough-marketingscam-cough* food has non-synthetic pesticides, which are even more harmful than what modern farming has now created. Yah, only difference between organic and regular food is....uhh...a scam.
@Bllackguard666 "there is no objective evidence to support the assertion that natural pesticide residues pose a hazard.""botanical insecticides tend to break down rapidly in the environment, are comparatively non-toxic, and are used by a relatively small fraction of growers""Consequently, these substances are not expected to leave residues in foods." consumersunion. org/pub/core_food_safety/00231
@Bllackguard666 52% of organic farmers use no pesticides whatsoever and the rest generally use less pesticides and more biological pest control like crop rotation, crop cover, predatory insects etc. than conventional farmers. USDA website states "Analysis of USDA and other data documenting pesticide residues on fresh vegetables and fruits shows that organic produce carries significantly fewer pesticide residues than conventional produce." nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/faq/BuyOrganicFoodsC.shtml
@Bllackguard666 "Organically grown foods consistently had about one-third as many residues as conventionally grown foods""Conventionally grown and IPM/NDR samples were also far more likely to contain multiple pesticide residues than were organically grown samples. Comparison of specific residues on specific crops found that residue concentrations in organic samples were consistently lower than in the other two categories, across all three data sets." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12028642
@Bllackguard666 The huge majority of peer reviewed studies suggest organic food is healthier/more nutritious. See my comments in this video for a dozen peer reviewed review studies on the subject. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of organic. The skeptoid, quackwatch etc. websites and Penn and Teller videos you got your misinformation are a *cough-marketingscam-cough*.
@myndy86 Keep spending more money, believe the lies (What? Companies lie to fool stupid sheeple to make more money?! No way!) of the big businesses (who are laughing at people like you), and die anyway. At least I know bullshit when I research it.
Try watching "Food, Inc.", taking a Nutrition or Chemistry Class, or providing sources on your claims before assaulting people w/ Generic Titles you don't Define. Would insulting you by calling you an uneducated, gun-loving, bloody thirsty, retarded, washed-up, overweight, ex-Army, conservative, hypocritical Christian, encapsulate you?
@Shileikis7 I could do the name calling thing, too, but I won't stoop to you're level. I am simply showing how it's a scam, and if you choose to believe proof or not, that's up to you. Your insults are not welcomed, but they do show what kind of person you are. Only things I'm not: retarded, hypocritical, and overweight. Everything else, I am.
@Bllackguard666 You began with name calling when you called Natalie a "Stupid, Liberal, Moron". I was not "calling you names". On the contrary, I used a question to show how un-useful name calling is, in order to focus on Factual Evidence over Emotionally Loaded Content. Now, can you define what "Liberal" characteristics make Natalie "a stupid moron", and provide peer-reviewed sources not funded by a ThinkTank who gets their funding from Monsanto, to support your claim?
@Shileikis7 The thing is I HAVE actual evidence there is no difference, and that this is a marketing scam. Put focus on me all you want, but it won't change the fact that this whole "organic" scam is funded by lobbyists that get big businesses to hop on this "organic food" band wagon. Evidence shows that there is no difference in organic or regular food, but PRICE.
@Bllackguard666 In these comments, I already posted like a dozen peer reviewed review studies and statements from the AFSSA and USDA stating that the majority of existing studies suggest organic food generally has higher levels of some nutrients and health benefits compared to conventionally grown food. Your so called "evidence" is probably a London School of Hygiene study which used questionable data from the 1950's and eliminated over 100 studies that found organic was more nutritious.
@myndy86 You stated evidence that supported by science? I'd like to see them. Umm...this "organic" movement didn't come into effect until 1972, so I have no idea (besides your ass) where you got those dates. And no, that is not where my sources came from. You have no scientific proof that it is more beneficial, in fact, scientific proof shows otherwise. Hey, spend your money, feed the scam; not my money you're spending, and I'm not the gullible one. Think whatcha want, hon.
@Bllackguard666 I already posted like a dozen peer reviewed studies in these comments, learn to read. LMAO! You didn't even read the full study from the London School of Hygiene did you? They used a study from the 1950's comparing what they claim is organic to conventionally grown food. Since you stated "Umm...this "organic" movement didn't come into effect until 1972" then you just admitted your source(London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) from your video is BS!
@myndy86 I guess you are smarter than a scientist, and their research. And all at age 25! Wow, you must be making a ton of money for your vast knowledge...errr....I mean gullibility.
@Bllackguard666 I quoted what scientists and research says, you just quoted 1 study I quoted a dozen. You got scammed by London School of Hygiene, when they reviewed 162 studies they found "Organically produced crops were found to have significantly higher levels of sugars, magnesium, zinc, dry matter, phenolic compounds and flavonoids than conventionally produced crops." food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/organicreviewappendices.pdf Then they eliminated over 100 studies to get a different result.
@Bllackguard666 London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine study "The systematic review search process identified 162 relevant articles published, with an English abstract, in peer-reviewed journals since 1st January 1958 until 29th February 2008."
food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/organicreviewappendices.pdf You said "this "organic" movement didn't come into effect until 1972, so I have no idea (besides your ass) where you got those dates." That's you admitting the study you quoted is crap!
@Bllackguard666 What logic? I quoted a dozen peer reviewed review studies suggesting organic food is generally more nutritious/healthier. You quote 1 flawed study that used data from the 1950's and even you admitted any study before 1972 is crap! If you don't believe the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed review studies and you choose to cling to this one study that even you admit is flawed, then it is you who needs to learn about what logic is.
@Shileikis7 I went through all the pages, and I don't see where I called anyone names, so you can stop that game, too. Admit you're wrong and just eat the damn food.
@tehatemachine "reviews of multiple studies show that organic varieties do provide significantly greater levels of vitamin C, iron, magnesium, and phosphorus than non-organic varieties of the same foods. While being higher in these nutrients, they are also significantly lower in nitrates and pesticide residues.""organic foods typically provide greater levels of a number of important antioxidant phytochemicals (anthocyanins, flavonoids, and carotenoids)." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20359265
@tehatemachine "Organic crops contain a significantly higher amount of certain antioxidants (vitamin C, polyphenols and flavonoids) and minerals, as well as have higher dry matter content than conventional ones.""there is a lower level of pesticide residues, nitrate and some heavy metal contaminations in organic crops compared to conventional ones." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17297755
@tehatemachine What are "antioxiands"? None of the quotes I gave mentioned "antioxiands", LMAO! I do know what antioxidants do, they reduce free radical damage. To put it simply for an obvious layman such as yourself, a free radical has an unpaired electron and can cause a chain reaction that can damage cells or even cause cell death. Antioxidants reduce this damage, depending upon where in the cell they are located they generally reduce damage to that part of the cell, etc..
@myndy86 Good job for wiking that :D but oxygen still will wear your insides out. oxygen is also fuckign awesome. Especially when paired with hydrogen to drive the space shuttles SSME's
@tehatemachine "For individual nutrients, existing studies show that organic fertilization practices produce crops with higher levels of ascorbic acid, lower levels of nitrate, and improved protein quality compared with conventionally grown crops.""Animal studies showed better growth and reproduction in animals fed organically grown feed compared with those fed conventionally grown feed." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9439021
@tehatemachine "A review of existing literature reveals that organic foods compared to conventionally produced foods seem to have a higher content of antioxidants in plant products and a higher content of fat-soluble vitamins and omega-3 fatty acids in animal products. Animal studies (among them, on rabbits and chickens) show higher fertility and less morbidity in animals fed organically." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15195159
@tehatemachine "A short review of such experiments shows that the majority of these tests revealed effects of the organically produced feed on health parameters such as reproductive performance and immune responses."" The science-based results suggest positive influences from organic feeds" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/203550 28 "Ecological food is tastier and contains more essential amino-acids, vitamin C, and micro-nutriments than usual food" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16610189
@tehatemachine "1/ organic plant products contain more dry matter and minerals (Fe, Mg); and contain more anti-oxidant micronutrients such as phenols and salicylic acid, 2/ organic animal products contain more polyunsaturated fatty acids""4/ 94–100% of organic food does not contain any pesticide residues, 5/ organic vegetables contain far less nitrates, about 50% less" agronomy-journal"dot"org/index .php?option=com_article&access =doi&doi=10.1051/agro/2009019& Itemid=129
@tehatemachine "Organic crops contain fewer nitrates, nitrites and pesticide residues but, as a rule, more dry matter, vitamin C, phenolic compounds, essential amino acids and total sugars than conventional crops. Organic crops also contain statistically more mineral compounds and usually have better sensory and long-term storage qualities." onlinelibrary.wiley"dot"com/do i/10.1002/jsfa.3000/abstract
@tehatemachine "Organic crops contained significantly more vitamin C, iron, magnesium, and phosphorus and significantly less nitrates than conventional crops. There were nonsignificant trends showing less protein but of a better quality and a higher content of nutritionally significant minerals with lower amounts of some heavy metals in organic crops compared to conventional ones." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11327522
I can think of a shitload of arguments against the points she makes, but just one is needed to blow all of her points out of the water: i've been eating 'non-organic' food for all of my life, so have my parents, and their parents... MY GRANDMA IS 80!!! & she still does house work and keeps up with her 12 children and the crazy amount of grandchildren and nephews nieces and so on and so forth... 'non-organic' and organic food aren't that different- the main difference is the price and yield!
@Thebrainrahul I would bet your grandma's parents and grandparents ate organic or close to organic(no synthetic pesticides, fertilizers etc.). Therefore your grandma is benefiting from the epigenetic effects of organic. An International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition study found 2nd and 3rd generation rabbits from organically fed parents exhibited higher birth rates and more viable embryos. Infectious illnesses were less frequent in 2nd generation organically fed animals, etc..
@Thebrainrahul The huge majority of peer reviewed review studies suggest organic is healthier/more nutritious(see my comments). Studies generally suggest organically fed animals live what would be translated in human years to about 10 years longer than conventionally fed animals. Maybe your grandma has good genetics(epigenetics from her organically fed parents etc.) and would live to 110 on an organic diet but on a conventional diet she would only live to 100 and would have more illnesses etc.
@77ThrowMonkey Organic farmers use more biological pest control, instead of pesticides to control pests, such as crop cover, crop rotation, predatory insects etc. Do you have references that all organic pesticides require 7 times more than synthetic to be effective? That might be true if you compare weak organic pesticides like mineral oil, but I doubt you will find a study that suggests organic pesticides like Bt or Neem need 7 times more than synthetic pesticides to be effective.
@myndy86 "such as crop cover, crop rotation" You did not just say Crop rotation did you? HAHAH so they do not rotate one side so it can replenish it's nutrients? WTF? dustbowl anyone?
@tehatemachine "so they do not rotate one side so it can replenish it's nutrients?" HAHAH, No, they specifically rotate with a leguminous crop so as to enhance nitrogen content of the soil. "dustbowl anyone?" Crop rotation has nothing to do with erosion. However, chemical fertilizers do contribute to erosion because it causes decreased water retention of the soil and therefore causes an increase of soil loss due to water causing erosion.
@CowboyDave07 Considering you are a pesticide "expert", I hoped you would have evidence to support the Penn and Teller video claim that coffee has 1000 times more cancer risk than pesticide residues. So, studies suggest coffee reduces cancer risk about 30% on average, yet without any evidence at all, you believe pesticide residue reduces cancer risk 30,000%? That`s just insane! I guess when you were talking about having blinders on, you were really talking about yourself!
@CowboyDave07 If you don`t like the sciencedaily study, I gave you the exact same study from newscientist website. I could give you the abstract for the original study as well if you prefer, but it all gives the same info, yields were on average significantly higher in poor countries using organic farming. I also gave you several studies, so you complaining about 1 of them is hilarious, when they all had very similar results.
@CowboyDave07 You won`t bother with me because you have been proven wrong and are too ashamed to admit it. You can try to debate the term "agroecology" all you want, but the evidence clearly gives the same yields for organic as it does agroecology. As I mentioned purchasing synthetic chemicals and fertilizers is a small part of the reason for the yield difference, you act as if that quote said the only reason is they can`t afford synthetic fertilizer etc., it didn`t, learn to read.
@tehatemachine Synthetic fertilizers have to do with the way they are processed, such as using petroleum coke gasification in the manufacturing process of some urea ammonium nitrate(UAN) fertilizers and other processing methods involved with synthetic fertilizers. Nitrogen itself, is not synthetic! You obviously don't understand the different definitions of the word chemical used in different regards. Next you are going to tell me all food is organic, LMAO!
@CowboyDave07 Wikipedia is one of the most unscientific online "encyclopedia" sites on the internet. LMAO! Try reading the UN review study and looking at the references. One reference is a UN study "Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa" which is where the "average increase of 116% for all African projects." statistic came from. Read it yourself if you don`t believe me! unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted200715_en.pdf
@myndy86 I'm not even going to bother with you anymore. Just keep shouting about how great agroecology is when it doesn't even singularly support organic farming techniques alone. Wikipedia isn't the only site that gives a clear definition of what agroecology is.
Not only that, but your articles are hilariously questionable when you get down to the bottom and read:
"The above story is reprinted (with editorial adaptations by ScienceDaily staff) from materials provided by University of Michigan"
@CowboyDave07 That was a UN report. Are you claiming the UN(who don`t profit from organic) is biased towards organic? Not being able to afford chemicals, is a small part of it, but there are more important reasons for the increased yields. Such as most areas in poor countries have poor access to water and/or have limited rainfall. Several field trials suggest organic can have almost double the yields of conventional in drought conditions even in developed countries.
@myndy86Try using wikipedia before typing on the internet and looking like an idiot. In fact, you don't even have a clue on what agroecology IS!
First line in the wikipedia definition of "agroecology":
"...the field of agroecology is not associated with any one particular method of farming, whether it be organic, conventional, intensive or extensive. Furthermore, it is not defined by certain management practices..."
If you actually read the report, much of it has to do with inter-crop rotation..
@CowboyDave07 "in developed countries, organic systems on average produce 92% of the yield produced by conventional agriculture. In developing countries, however, organic systems produce 80% more than conventional farms." newscientist"dot"com/article/dn12245-organic-farming-could-feed-the-world.html ""agroecological projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80% in 57 developing countries"
@CowboyDave07 "Organic farming can lead to increased food production -- in many cases a doubling of yields has been seen""for these projects: 116 per cent increase for all African projects" unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted200715_en.pdf
Agroecology study "with an average increase of 116% for all African projects."
I don't know why you people keep running to these "experts" instead of the people that ACTUALLY GROW IT. As for the African projects, of course organic produces more. They CANT afford the equipment for conventional farming. Lets get some un-biased links in here:
Of, you like the taste of chemicals? I don't know about your taste buds, but commercially grown apples and strawberries taste like sh*t compared to organically grown. They also emit a chemical smell. Next time your at the store have the produce guy slice open a nice shiny, Frankenstein sized conventional apple and an organic apple. Take a whiff of them and compare. Take a taste of each (taste the organic apple first).
@Pube83 Really, are you gonna taste that 1% chemical mixture PER 1000 GALLONS? I should know, I hold a state certified pesticide applicator license. You are more likely to get sick from the workers that haven't washed their hands while picking the stuff out in the field.
Rofl, taste test...yeah right. Check this out:
youtube.com/watch?v=8Zqe4ZV9LDs
Nice odds...9 out of 10 were fooled in a taste test. Go back to sniffing crack buddy.
You hold a license...as if you're not biased! lmao YOU push this crap.
Taste, definitely. If you can't tell the difference, good for you. Shovel the less nutritious and tainted food in your gullet and be happy about it. I suppose you think factory farmed beef is as good as grass-fed? And that cheap eggs taste as good as organic eggs?
That Pen and Teller show is BS. The so called expert on that show Alex Avery and "The Hudson Institute" is a shell for Monsanto.
@Pube83 You are an idiot, aren't you? That license means I know what I am dealing with when it comes to chemicals. Biased? Nope, just not a sucker for the organics craze. I've lived on a ranch my entire life and know what is in the CONVENTIONAL food I buy. What half of the world do you want to leave to starve to death when you figure out that you simply CAN NOT grow enough organically to feed them all?
Any evidence to support your claim against Penn and Teller? ...Didn't think so.
@CowboyDave07 Numerous studies suggest coffee reduces the risk of most cancers by about 30% on average, yet, Alex Avery in the Penn and Teller video states coffee is 1000 times more of a cancer risk than pesticide residue. If you believe the Penn and Teller video, can you provide me with a study that states pesticide residue reduces cancer risk by about 30,000%? ...Didn't think so. Go to the Penn and Teller Organic videos on youtube, I debunk most of their false claims in the comments there.
@CowboyDave07 "you simply CAN NOT grow enough organically to feed them all?" You obviously didn't read the studies I gave you. "Organic farming can yield up to three times as much food as convnetional farming on the same amount of land.""in developed countries, yields were almost equal on organic and conventional farms. In developing countries, food production could double or triplle using organic methods." sciencedaily"dot"com/releases/2007/07/070711134523.htm
@myndy86 How typical, reading only what you want to accept and putting on blinders when confronted with evidence that counters your beliefs. Try reading more than the first paragraph of your own "evidence"!!
"While that seems counterintuitive, it makes sense because in developing countries, many farmers still do not have the access to the expensive fertilizers and pesticides that farmers use in developed countries to produce those high yields, she said."
@CowboyDave07 Penn and Teller are magicians, their job is to trick you! Obviously that video was edited to make organic seem bad! For unedited results of organic vs conventional taste tests(not done by magicians) type "Organic or Conventional? (2 of 2)" in the youtube search engine, and type "Organic vs Inorganic Taste Test".
Everyone Visit This new Blog which Contains Infos A about All Types Of Healthy Foods It Still New , Plz visit and Help To Make it better WhyShouldIEatThis. Blogspot .Com
Everyone Visit This new Blog which Contains Infos A about All Types Of Healthy Foods It Still New , Plz visit and Help To Make it better WhyShouldIEatThis.Blogspot.Com
@metalslugxBTB "Today`s scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live-especially in unfavorable environments.""To date agroecological projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80% in 57 developing countries, with an average increase of 116% for all African projects." srfood.org/index.php/en/component/content/article/1174-report-agroecology-and-the-right-to-food
Think that organic is a scam?
1) Altern Ther Health Med. 1998 Jan;4(1):58-69.
Effect of agricultural methods on nutritional quality: a comparison of organic with conventional crops.
2) Grain mineral concentrations and yield of wheat grown under organic and conventional management 1. MH Ryan1,*, 2. JW Derrick2, 3. PR Dann3,†
Article first published online: 12 JAN 2004
DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.1634
jinhale 1 week ago
@jinhale Remember that nature is complex so examine end results too, not just hypothetical mechanisms to achieve better nutrition. For example, the above second reference demonstrates just one interaction between plants and fungi that is influenced by herbicides and greatly affects nutrition.
Trust science not hype: organic is better; the FDA is bought/biased.
jinhale 1 week ago
Yay good for us that we have inefficient agriculture for snobs don't giving a damn thing about world starvation. Well let me tell you something. GE crops also don't need synthetic pesticides- they synthesise the ones aimed only to bugs. GE crops don't need that much fertilizer. And most important GE crops give much more nutrients per acre than organic food. And humanity needs all the food it can get.
TheMalar 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheMalar "The world currently produces enough food for everybody, but many people do not have access to it" fao.org/hunger/en/
"Organic farming can lead to increased food production – in many cases a doubling of yields has been seen""the average crop yield increase was even higher for these projects: 116 per cent increase for all African projects and 128 per cent increase for the projects in East Africa" unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted200715_en.pdf
myndy86 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheMalar "Today's scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live- especially in unfavorable environments.""To date agroecological projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80% in 57 developing countries, with an average increase of 116% for all African projects." srfood.org/index.php/en/component/content/article/1174-report-agroecology-and-the-right-to-food
myndy86 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheMalar "Organic farming can yield up to three times as much food as conventional farming on the same amount of land.""in developed countries, yields were almost equal on organic and conventional farms. In developing countries, food production could double or triple using organic methods" sciencedaily"dot"com/releases/2007/07/070711134523.htm
myndy86 1 week ago
@TheMalar The huge majority of GE crops were specifically designed to be sprayed with a pesticide! Even farmers using Bt crops still generally use pesticides because the Bt crops only target one or a few pests and not all of the pests that attack the crop. In fact when cotton farmers in China didn't use pesticides on Bt cotton varieties they had mirid bug outbreaks. Some GE crops need more fertilizers like additional Mn for RR soy crops, etc. Organic generally has higher nutrients.
myndy86 1 week ago
@myndy86 I don't mean they need no pesticides but far less, because they ussualy target the most destructive pests. And even if it takes mor fertilizer per acre of GE crops it is still less fertilizer per ton of food, because GE crops give gigher biomass. And if organic food have mor nutrients it is not the fault of modifications but using more organic matter for fertilizer.
TheMalar 1 week ago
@TheMalar For RR crops, glyphosate application may also reduce nutrients as well as reduce biomass. I also wouldn't consider most GE crops "food crops". Varieties of Bt corn are primarily used for ethanol production, cattle feed and corn syrup, corn oil, etc. Cotton and Canola varieties are primarily used for oils, Sugar beets used for sugar, etc. Most GE crops are "food additive crops". I wouldn't consider them food anymore than I would consider table salt a food.
myndy86 1 week ago
@myndy86 Because you look at the most popular ones like corn. But what about golden rice or tomatos? And if using glyphosate would reduce production, why would people use it?
TheMalar 1 week ago
@TheMalar Glyphosate is used primarily for convenience, rather than use other more manual methods of weeding. Most countries don't use GE tomato anymore, they are rarely used. Golden Rice is still largely experimental, it's not widely available commercially. Also Golden Rice is more about increased nutrition than it is production and there are numerous conventionally bred(used in organic) nutrient enhanced crops like Orange Maize, Orange Sweet Potato, High Beta Carotene Tomato, etc.
myndy86 1 week ago
@myndy86 Exactly, because other weeding methods cost more, using only one pesticide is much cheaper, and we need cheap food. But we are talking about countries that don't grow crops rich in beta carotens. Milions of children go blind because their diet has not enough beta carotens in it, but they eat rice as the main source of calories. Not all people afford functional food.
TheMalar 1 week ago
@TheMalar In poor countries using glyphosate costs more because they don't have easy access to it and labor is cheaper. Also paying people to weed creates jobs and reduces poverty which is a main cause of hunger. All of the conventionally bred crops I mentioned in my last post were developed for use in poor countries. Many of the weeds you want to kill with glyphosate in poor countries, often have high levels of beta carotene, so manual weeding provides more jobs and more nutrients.
myndy86 1 week ago
@myndy86 In poor countries farmers are to poor to afford hireing someone to weed for them. Using herbicides is still a better option for them. And paying for weedeng does not reduces poverty it creates it. Because you have to pay for the food, and we all need to buy food so all the economy suffers. So what? We will eat weeds to maintain our diet? How more does organic food costs? How does paying two times more for food reduces poverty and hunger?
TheMalar 1 week ago
@TheMalar Many people make about $1(U.S.) a day in poor countries, so it is significantly cheaper to pay labor than the cost of glyphosate in poor countries. Most jobs in poor countries are related agriculture, food processing etc. so the more money farmers make the better the economy. Organic is less expensive to produce(no expensive synthetic inputs, etc.) and sells for money(more profit), this creates more and better paying jobs which reduces poverty and reduces hunger.
myndy86 1 week ago
@myndy86 So how that farmer that can bearly affor to feed himself can afford extra labor? And organic is not less expensive, if it was organic food would not be 2 times or 4 times more expensive. You seem to know nothing about the relations between demand, supply and the prices.
TheMalar 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheMalar How can the farmer who can barely afford to feed himself afford glyphosate which is more expensive than labor in poor countries? Organic food costs more primarily because the demand is high and the supply is low, hence the higher price. Organic farmers in the U.S. had an estimated average net income of about $20k per farm per year higher than the all-farm figure. So poor countries should grow organic, so they make more profit and can hire labor and reduce poverty.
myndy86 1 week ago
@TheMalar Let me give you an example of what I mean. In Northern Potosí, Bolivia organic fertilizer costs US$18/ha, which compares with the US$170/ha for an equivalent amount of inorganic fertilizer. That is just fertilizer, you want them to use synthetic pesticides, glyphosate, etc. If organic costs less to produce and sells for more, they can make the same profit from a farm half the size, and the wife could work the farm and the husband get another job, thus reducing poverty.
myndy86 1 week ago
Hi Natalie
FrnkEzee 3 weeks ago
penn and teller say bullshit!
catseye10000 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@catseye10000 Numerous peer reviewed studies suggest coffee reduces cancer risk about 30% on average. If you believe Penn and Teller, can you provide evidence that coffee has 1000 times more cancer risk than pesticide residue? You would have to post a peer reviewed study suggesting pesticide residue reduces cancer risk 30,000%. Do you realize how insane the anti-organic claims in that video are? P&T are magicians, they get paid to trick you!
myndy86 3 weeks ago
first off she is right not to mention hot,,,,,but duhhhh u dumb asses if u use your sewage for fertilizer more than likely it will have chemicals in it from when u took a big dump from the mcdonalsd burger u ate . or the toilet bowl cleaner u forgot about,,,,,no filters will completely rid it free
jammingeo1 1 month ago
worst video ever! so inaccurate! you can't lie like this! state your opinion maybe, but don't make up shit.
jasonladeroutejason 3 months ago in playlist My Vlog
@jasonladeroutejason This video goes over the USDA regulations for Organic food. Those weren't made up, those are the government standards.
psychetruth 3 months ago 5
Do your homework next time what a crappy video. I hope your aware that people have been using there sewage to fertilize their crops for hundreds if not thousands of years. Plus micro organisms. Some of the organisms like mycorrhiza take an extremely long time to break down nutrients. Like I said do your homework next time
Byodawg 3 months ago
@Byodawg Did sewage sludge hundreds or thousands of years ago contain prescription drugs, synthetic pesticides, heavy metals, industrial chemicals, etc.? Modern sewage sludge does! Many chemicals that get flushed down the toilet or go down a sewage drain are not filtered out by water treatment plants. Not to mention the infectious levels of bacteria, viruses, protazoa and helminths, plus parasitic worms, etc.
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 But when it comes down to I either have to pay my rent this month or buy organic food as would be the case for many people all over the world, it isn’t such a simple question to ask. This doesn’t even address the honesty of people. If I went to a local farmers market and asked if they only used organic pesticides, how would I know if they were lying or not? Surely nobody would use conventional farming then say they grew it organically to sell it for the inflated organic food prices.
jambog82 3 months ago
@jambog82 I didn't say go to farmer's markets, I said go to farms, meaning certified organic farms. As I already mentioned I pay significantly less for most organic produce than I would for conventional in a supermarket. For my income in comparison to my family size, I am below poverty level in the U.S., so the extra savings of buying organic helps me pay my bills. Plus the money I will probably save from medical bills and lost wages from being sick, make organic a better choice.
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 There are no organic farms in my county, at least none that I could find. I could travel outside of my county but even if I saved money from buying from directly from the farmer, the cost in fuel alone to travel to the closest organic farm would not be worth it. Its easy to ask “How much is and extra 5 years worth?” if you have the money to afford it.
jambog82 3 months ago
@jambog82 It may depend on where you live, but if there are no near-by farms, most cities have organic buyer's clubs that sell certified organic produce at discounted prices. If you live in a rural area and have access to land, you may consider growing some of your. I don't know where you live, but if you are willing to share that information with me, I would be more than happy to try to help you find organic farms or buyer's clubs, etc. and you can decide if it is worth it for you or not.
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 Anyway, I have wasted enough time on this discussion. Fact is even if you convinced me organic was healthier it wouldn’t matter because I couldn’t afford it. I can barely afford groceries as it is. I’m sure you will post some link on how organic is more affordable or some such non sense, but go to any grocery store. It isn’t. So excuse me while I go to work so I can buy my pesticide ridden, although affordable, groceries.
jambog82 3 months ago
@jambog82 I actually generally pay less for organic produce than I would for most conventional produce. There are organic co-ops/buyer's clubs or you could go directly to the farm, especially farms that allow you to pick your own. Going to the farm cuts the farmer's packing and shipping costs and picking your own cuts the labor costs. I often pay about half the price for organic from the farm than the cost of the same conventional food in the supermarket.
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 While some organic foods may have higher vitamin or mineral content, it is by no means significantly higher. Yet organic food costs significantly more without providing significantly more health benefits. Videos like this only contribute to this scam, no matter how well intentioned they may be. Although you may completely agree with this video, if you can’t see that it is intentionally misleading then you are blind.
jambog82 3 months ago
@jambog82 The vitamins and minerals are slightly higher per food, so if you eat all organic, those added nutrients will add up at the end of the day. Considering a large portion of people even in wealthy countries have several nutrient deficiencies, eating organic can potentially reduce or eliminate those deficiencies. The studies also suggest organically fed animals live longer, with less degenerative disease, etc. so how much is an extra 5-10 disease free years worth to you?
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 People seem to forget how good we actually have. For most of human history, people couldn’t even dream of how good we have it today, but yet we still find some way to complain about it.
jambog82 3 months ago
@jambog82 There are legit complaints and if we continue to use conventional farming the way it has been used for the past 40 years or so, then we won't have it good at all. You also forget that conventional farming has caused massive environmental damage in order to provide the food and if we continue this yields will dramatically decrease in places and mass starvation will occur, organic should be used whenever possible to prevent this. UN report Save and Grow fao.org/ag/save-and-grow/
myndy86 3 months ago
Comment removed
jambog82 3 months ago
@myndy86 Frankly, I'm happy to live in a time and place where I have food everyday of my life and I know I will most likely live to be twice the age of people who lived a mere 150 years ago. And that’s regardless of it I eat organic foods or not. In fact I could shove my face with hamburgers, fries, and soda everyday of my life and STILL live longer than most people who lived 100 years ago.
jambog82 3 months ago
@myndy86 You know, we could do this for months. The fact is for every source you cite for your point, I could cite an equally vetted source to counter it. It's a controversial issue and more research needs to be done. But that doesn't excuse this video from outright misleading people about the use of pesticides and fertilizers, which was my whole point of originally commenting.
jambog82 3 months ago
@jambog82 The only thing is that you haven't cited any sources. I really don't think she is misleading people on purpose. Clearly organic uses fertilizers, even various legumes can take nitrogen from the air, which is a fertilizer. This is why it seems most likely that she meant to say "synthetic", because common knowledge is that organic uses fertilizer.
myndy86 3 months ago
@jambog82 Your original comment was "Why are the hot girls always the stupid ones? Organic food is a scam lady." You didn't say anything about her saying organic doesn't use pesticides or fertilizers, etc. If your comment was something like "She is wrong about organic not using fertilizers and pesticides." then I doubt I would have replied, but you said "Organic food is a scam". This is what I mean by not going into enough detail, as you did it also.
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 @myndy86 No, I haven’t cited any sources, but are you denying they exist? I have found many vetted ones that refute many of your claims. Just use google to find them, it wasn’t hard. And a scam is something that is misleading. Proponents of organic food do mislead people as this video demonstrates. Even one of your own sources said that organic or conventional diets can be equally healthy, yet organic proponents probably will never tell you this in my experience.
jambog82 3 months ago
@jambog82 You are misinterpreting the statement "it seems, however, that despite any differences,a well-balanced diet can equally improve health regardless of its organic or conventional origin." Notice the wording IT SEEMS, they state "generalisation of the conclusions should be made with caution." they had little data at the time, but the data suggested "animal feeding experiments indicate that animal health and reproductive performance are slightly improved when they are organically fed."
myndy86 3 months ago
@jambog82 Your argument was "for every source you cite for your point, I could cite an equally vetted source to counter it." I don't believe you can, the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed studies suggest organic food is generally more nutritious and/or healthier than conventional. I have never seen a peer reviewed study that looked a worldwide yields that suggests organic can not feed the world. The majority of studies suggest conventional farming is more environmentally harmful, etc.
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 I will email you a list of articles I found that counter many of your points. These are simply from basic google and bing searches. I'm sure if I wanted to invest the time in going to the library or accessing academic databases, I would find many more. The point is they are out there. Organic food isn't as clean cut of any issue as I think you think it is. It is complicated.
jambog82 3 months ago
@jambog82 I appreciate the articles, but none of them were a peer reviewed study, just opinion pieces. Several of them are very biased, for example the first article said "The low yields on organic farms mean that to produce the same amount of food as conventional farms, more land is needed.", but it only looked at yields in parts of Europe and Australia and not the countries in Asia, Africa, etc. that have had huge yield increases with organic, so it's not a worldwide yield comparison.
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 She is defining the word organic to mean it is grown without pesticides or fertilizers. That is an incorrect definition of the word. She didn’t forget to use the word “synthetic” either. She repeatedly insinuates that pesticides are not used at all in organic farming. Maybe she is just deluded herself, but before producing a video with the purpose to sway people’s opinions, maybe you should make sure your facts are straight.
jambog82 3 months ago
@myndy86 I didn’t say synthetic pesticides aren’t harmful. I basically said they haven’t been proven harmful yet but more research could prove them to be so in the future so you are just flat out putting words in my mouth there. And I said we could PROBABLY only produce 2/3…PROBABLY being the key word there, meaning I am stating an estimated opinion.
jambog82 3 months ago
@jambog82 You said "The only one that did work was the unctad one. And none of the direct quotes you gave in that comment were actually in the pdf document." I PROVED to you that those quotes are in the document, but I didn't say you were a liar. You probably overlooked them, just like she probably forgot to say "synthetic" and forgot to mention that some countries do use sewage sludge in organic but countries like the U.S. do not allow it. You can't expect every detail in a 9 min video.
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 ...Even if you absolutely prove to me that organic farming is better, that doesn't excuse the fact that this video down right lies about how it works in order to "convert" people to their way of thinking. By all means, try to convince others that your viewpoint is correct. Just don't lie and spread false information to do it as this video clearly does.
jambog82 3 months ago
@myndy86 Anyway, my whole point in even commenting in the first place was to point out how this video is lying. 1 minute into the video it states that organic farming DOESN"T USE pesticides or fertilizers. This is an outright lie. Organic farming uses organic pesticides and fertilizers. In fact SEWAGE SLUGE is considered an organic fertilizer (Although it is prohibited in the US, but such restrictions don't exist in all countries)...con't....
jambog82 3 months ago
@jambog82 It depends on the country, in some countries organic doesn't allow pesticides. She may have also meant to say "synthetic" pesticides. You are correct that sewage sludge is permitted in some countries for organic, but her not going into every detail as she should have doesn't mean she is lying. You saying synthetic pesticides aren't harmful and organic can only feed 2/3 of the world isn't accurate and I didn't call you a liar.
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 For farmers who can't afford modern day synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, than yes, using methods such as field rotation and predatory insects is a good alternative. But for modern conventional farmers who live in wealthier countries where more technology is available, there is no substitute. You own source ever states this (see paragraph 2 on page vii in the unctad link). Why don't you try actually reading and understanding your sources instead of just quote mining from them?..cont
jambog82 3 months ago
@jambog82 Organic performs better in areas with poor access to water and/or drought, which is the case in most poor countries. Read the whole study! "Organic farming leads to many improvements to the natural environment, including increased water retention in soils, improvements in the water table (with more drinking water in the dry season), reduced soil erosion combined with improved organic matter in soil leading to better carbon sequestration, and increased agro-biodiversity."
myndy86 3 months ago
@jambog82 UNCTAD continued "As a result soils are healthier, are better able to hold water and are more stable, can sustain plant growth better and have a higher nutrient content. All this enables farmers to grow crops for longer periods, with higher yields and in marginal conditions."
Youtube doesn"t allow links type h t t p : / / w w w . in front of the links and change the "dot" to a . in some cases, or just type the quote from the study in Google and the study should come up.
myndy86 3 months ago
@jambog82 I do understand the study, you said organic can only produce enough food to feed 2/3 of the world, the studies I quoted suggest organic has slightly lower or equal yields in wealthy countries and 80%-116% HIGHER yields in poor countries and areas with drought conditions etc. If you do the math that means organic can easily feed the world. Also, the quotes I gave were direct quotes from the pdf. I will find exactly what page and paragraph for you.
myndy86 3 months ago
Comment removed
jambog82 3 months ago
But let's say you are correct and pesticides are responsible for thousands of deaths a year. Should we stop using them and start using only organic farming? Probably not. If all farming was organic we could probably only produce 2/3 of the amount of food we can now, hence millions, hundreds of millions even would starve as a result. What is better? Thousands of people MAYBE getting cancer or millions definitely starving to death? It comes down to what is the lesser of two evils.
jambog82 3 months ago
@jambog82 "Today's scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live- especially in unfavorable environments.""To date agroecological projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80% in 57 developing countries, with an average increase of 116% for all African projects." srfood.org/index.php/en/component/content/article/1174-report-agroecology-and-the-right-to-food
myndy86 3 months ago
@jambog82 "Organic farming can lead to increased food production – in many cases a doubling of yields has been seen""the average crop yield increase was even higher for these projects: 116 per cent increase for all African projects and 128 per cent increase for the projects in East Africa"
unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted200715_en.pdf
myndy86 3 months ago
@jambog82 "Organic farming can yield up to three times as much food as conventional farming on the same amount of land.""in developed countries, yields were almost equal on organic and conventional farms. In developing countries, food production could double or triple using organic methods" sciencedaily"dot"com/releases/2007/07/070711134523.htm
myndy86 3 months ago
@jambog82 "there could be as many as 25 million agricultural workers in the developing world suffering an episode of poisoning each year" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2238694 This doesn't count cancer, developmental or reproductive affects that may be linked to pesticides. Thousands of deaths and millions of poisonings from synthetic pesticides(mostly organophosphates) already occur and most epidemics are from food. Most studies suggest organic can feed the world, without synthetic pesticides.
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 Well, I would investigate this further, but seeing as how none of you links to your sources actually exist I can't. Maybe you made a typo or maybe you just made them up I don't know. The only one that did work was the unctad one. And none of the direct quotes you gave in that comment were actually in the pdf document. That document is about how organic farming can help poor countries like Africa where farmers can't afford the technology needed for modern conventional farming...con't...
jambog82 3 months ago
@jambog82 "Organic farming can lead to increased food production – in many cases a doubling of yields
has been seen" Is on page 11 the first senetnce in the last paragraph.
"the average crop yield increase was even higher for these projects: 116 per cent increase for all African projects and 128 per cent increase for the projects" Is on page 16 last sentence of the second paragraph. unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted200715_en.pdf
myndy86 3 months ago
Again, your sources state that glyphosate could be "potentially carcinogenic". The key word being potentially. I could say anything is potentially carcinogenic. That doesn't make it actually carcinogenic. This is a hypothesis, not a fact. Yes, further research could prove them to in fact be carcinogenic, but IT HASN"T YET. And yes, I agree pregnant women shouldn't be spraying pesticides. But because a chemical is harmful to placental cells doesn't mean it is harmful to humans in general.
jambog82 3 months ago
@jambog82 "Children with higher urinary dialkyl phosphate concentrations, especially dimethyl alkylphosphate (DMAP) concentrations, were more likely to be diagnosed as having ADHD.""CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the hypothesis that organophosphate exposure, at levels common among US children, may contribute to ADHD prevalence."
myndy86 3 months ago
@jambog82 "In conclusion, we were able to demonstrate that an organic diet provides a dramatic and immediate protective effect against exposures to organophosphorus pesticides that are commonly used in agricultural production. We also concluded that these children were most likely exposed to these organophosphorus pesticides exclusively through their diet" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1367841/
myndy86 3 months ago
Why are the hot girls always the stupid ones? Organic food is a scam lady.
jambog82 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jambog82 [Current issues regarding organic food]., Rev Med Chir Soc Med Nat Iasi., Universitatea de Medicină si Farmacie "Ecological food is tastier and contains more essential amino-acids, vitamin C, and micro-nutriments than usual food" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16610189
myndy86 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jambog82 [Better health with ecologic food?]. Universitetet i Oslo "organic foods compared to conventionally produced foods seem to have a higher content of antioxidants in plant products and a higher content of fat-soluble vitamins and omega-3 fatty acids in animal products. Animal studies (among them, on rabbits and chickens) show higher fertility and less morbidity in animals fed organically." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15195159
myndy86 3 months ago
@jambog82 "Organic crops contain a significantly higher amount of certain antioxidants (vitamin C, polyphenols and flavonoids) and minerals, as well as have higher dry matter content than conventional ones.""there is a lower level of pesticide residues, nitrate and some heavy metal contaminations in organic crops compared to conventional ones." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17297755
myndy86 3 months ago
@jambog82 From healthy soil to healthy food: an analysis of the quality of food produced under contrasting agricultural systems, University of Kassel "Studies under controlled experimental conditions show a clear advantage for staple food grown under biological/ecological farming conditions as compared to those from conventional farming methods."" lower undesirable (e.g. nitrates) and higher desirable (e.g. vit. C, trace elements) components are present." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3054635
myndy86 3 months ago
@jambog82 IJFSN study Organic food: nutritious food or food for thought? A review of the evidence. Weight gain was greater in organically fed rats,mortality was lower at 9 weeks,incidence of degenerative diseases was lower. Lower mortality in organically fed rabbits. 2nd and 3rd generation rabbits from organically fed parents exhibited higher birth rates and more viable embryos. Infectious illnesses were less frequent in 2nd generation organically fed animals. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12907407
myndy86 3 months ago
@jambog82 French government AFSSA"1/ organic plant products contain more dry matter and minerals (Fe, Mg); and contain more anti-oxidant micronutrients such as phenols and salicylic acid, 2/ organic animal products contain more polyunsaturated fatty acids""4/ 94–100% of organic food does not contain any pesticide residues, 5/ organic vegetables contain far less nitrates, about 50% less" agronomy-journal"dot"org/index.php?option=com_article&access=doi&doi=10.1051/agro/2009019&Itemid=129
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 I think it is funny how the same exact sources you use to argue against my point also prove my argument. For example, one of YOUR OWN sources states "existing evidence is inadequate to allow for valid conclusions" and "a well-balanced diet can equally improve health regardless of its organic or conventional origin" So your own sources say that an organic or conventional diet can be EQUALLY healthy! This, I remind you again is from your own source of information.
jambog82 3 months ago
@jambog82 con't..... but science hasn't done so yet, so get off your high horse because you are being scammed by the organic food industry.
jambog82 3 months ago
@jambog82 They have only pesticides in org.farming in some countries like urs
But saying org.food is a scam is false.There are pro-organic aswell as anti-organic scientests I have meet several from both sides. Its undecided if its better for the enviroment and a better long term solution,dont think anyone thinks its healthier though
Anyways doing like myndy who has no insight and no basic knowledge and links to a couple(out of several thousands)reports to prove her point is incredible retarded
Uuuurk 3 months ago
@Uuuurk You are only talking to scientists in the agricultural field. In my fields of food and nutrition and physiology the majority of scientists do believe the evidence is in favor of organic being more nutritious and/or healthier.
myndy86 3 months ago
@jambog82 You are reading a study from over a decade ago, when there was much less evidence, but the evidence that did exist was in favor of organic food being more nutritious/healthier. Read the conclusions from the more recent studies such as the AFSSA, now that hundreds of studies have been done in the last decade. Not my only sources, but one of the oldest souces I gave you, like I said read the more recent studies as well.
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 And so what an organic vegetable has SLIGHTLY more vitamin C in it. That's why they have vitamin supplements. And so what if organic foods has less pesticide residue. There is no scientific evidence current synthetic pesticides increase the chances of certain diseases. In fact the pesticides used in organic farming (Yes they do use pesticides) are often more harmful than the synthetic ones. Science may determine that infact organic food is significantly healthier for humans to eat......
jambog82 3 months ago
@jambog82 there is no objective evidence to support the assertion that natural pesticide residues pose a hazard.""botanical insecticides tend to break down rapidly in the environment, are comparatively non-toxic, and are used by a relatively small fraction of growers" "Consequently, these substances are not expected to leave residues in foods." consumersunion. org/pub/core_food_safety/002312.html
myndy86 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jambog82 there is no objective evidence to support the assertion that natural pesticide residues pose a hazard.""botanical insecticides tend to break down rapidly in the environment, are comparatively non-toxic, and are used by a relatively small fraction of growers" "Consequently, these substances are not expected to leave residues in foods." consumersunion"dot" org/pub/core_food_safety/002312.html
myndy86 3 months ago
@jambog82 There is plenty of scientific evidence that current synthetic pesticides/herbicides are linked to various illnesses, diseases, reproductive problems, etc. "Roundup exposure may affect human reproduction and fetal development in case of contamination." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17486286 "Glyphosate formulations induce apoptosis and necrosis in human umbilical, embryonic, and placental cells" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19105591
myndy86 3 months ago
@jambog82 "glyphosate is toxic to human placental JEG3 cells within 18 hr with concentrations lower than those found with agricultural use""We conclude that endocrine and toxic effects of Roundup, not just glyphosate, can be observed in mammals." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15929894 "Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19539684
myndy86 3 months ago
@jambog82 "Reported use of several individual pesticides was associated with increased NHL incidence, including organophosphate insecticides coumaphos, diazinon, and fonofos, insecticides chlordane, dieldrin, and copper acetoarsenite, and herbicides atrazine, glyphosate, and sodium chlorate. A subanalysis of these "potentially carcinogenic" pesticides suggested a positive trend of risk with exposure to increasing numbers." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1740618/
myndy86 3 months ago
“Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally-produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority.” Dr Dangour: London School for Hygiene and Tropical health.
Bllackguard666 3 months ago
The misconceptions about organic is that food is grown without any chemicals, whether they be fertilizers, pesticides, or insecticides. This, is not true. Standards set by the USDA's National Organic Program allow producers to use a substantial list of "approved" synthetic substances to still call their products organic. Organic food has a huge profit margin and zealous fans. They are so into this fad that they’ll pay for the bragging rights of doing something good.
Bllackguard666 3 months ago
@mik99D On Jul 13, in these comments I posted peer reviewed studies and UN reports suggesting organic farming could feed the current world population on the same amount of agricultural land currently used. Can you provide a peer reviewed study stating organic can only feed half the world`s population? The english language has more than one definition for the word organic, your definition applies to chemistry, when applied to farming, organic has a different definition.
myndy86 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sorry Natalie. When you list the 'toxins' you fail to say that ALL those compounds are found in SOIL. The amounts are small same as in the refuse. If everyone went 'organic' 1/2 the world would starve to death. And Organic means "made with chains of carbon atoms" You are a prize turkey. I'm sorry but all your statements are not backed up with data. You may get pesticides from food but that could be 1 part in a billion.
mik99D 4 months ago
Sorry Natalie. When you list the 'toxins' you fail to say that ALL those compounds are found in SOIL. The amounts are small same as in the refuse. If everyone went 'organic' 1/2 the world would starve to death. And Organic means "made with chains of carbon atoms" You are a prize turkey. I'm sorry but all your statements are not backed up with data. You may get pesticides from food but that could be 1 part in a billion.
mik99D 4 months ago
@mik99D well said. at the end of the day, taste & cost is the manner most of us buy food.
example: if you cannot tell a organic soup or not on taste but organic is $1.00 more per
can, people will buy non organic and still enjoy their low sodium, low fat soup
flpete 3 months ago
Irradiated foods are not radioactive. It's true some vegetables loose some flavor when they are exposed to radiation, most of them go trough well and it is a very good way to preserve food and can kill harmfull E. Coli bacteria.
nemodot 4 months ago
OK, so all artificial things are harmful? That's irrational. THINK WITH YOUR BRAIN.
nemodot 4 months ago
Synthetic fertilizers do not destroy these microorganisms unless tyou use a lot of them. Organic fertilizers contain the same chemicals as the synthetic ones, composting is good but synthetic IS NOT EVIL people! Think rationally.
nemodot 4 months ago
Come on, this is not rational thinking, this is faith base belief. These arguments are very poor!
Pesticides: There are a lot of them, not all of them are toxic, not all of them are safe, we regulate this things people! Yes they are chemicals, but all is chemistry, every piece of matter is composed of chemical molecules and atoms.
Fetilizers: You'll seriously argue against synthetic fertilizers naming a one time event? Once again, there are regulations we can make to prevent this.
nemodot 4 months ago
she votes republican
thaburger23 5 months ago
@sagitta242 I can only speak for myself but I would expect to live about 10 years longer than the average conventional food eater and have less chance of degenerative disease, less illness, better reproduction ability, and I expect my children and grandchildren to have the same benefits as well. These expectations are based on the huge majority of animal studies that suggest these benefits as you can see in my comments on Jun 26.
myndy86 5 months ago
"No radiation used at all" is impossible. Light is a form of radiation. So, any plant grown is the product of "use of" radiation. Likewise, the implication she makes, though not stated, is that food that has been exposed to radiation must be radioactive, which is plainly false. Then she claims, without providing evidence, that exposure to radiation strips food of vitamins.
jastreich 5 months ago
@tehatemachine You have no idea what you are talking about. You could not even spell antioxidant, so I can not expect you to even understand the peer reviewed studies I posted. Space shuttle fuel has nothing to do with organic food, you are just attempting to change the subject because you have no argument against organic.
myndy86 6 months ago
@Bllackguard666 I gave you peer reviewed review studies from independent scientists as well as statements from the USDA and the french government's food safety agency. None of what I quoted came from any business. You just believe whatever big business tells you and you call science bs, LMAO!
myndy86 6 months ago
i like the venus project's approach on this. google it
FundiNation 6 months ago
Uhh...organic farmer DO use pesticides and hormones, stupid, liberal, moron. Look it up. Your "organic" *cough-marketingscam-cough* food has non-synthetic pesticides, which are even more harmful than what modern farming has now created. Yah, only difference between organic and regular food is....uhh...a scam.
Bllackguard666 6 months ago 2
@Bllackguard666 "there is no objective evidence to support the assertion that natural pesticide residues pose a hazard.""botanical insecticides tend to break down rapidly in the environment, are comparatively non-toxic, and are used by a relatively small fraction of growers""Consequently, these substances are not expected to leave residues in foods." consumersunion. org/pub/core_food_safety/00231
2.html
myndy86 6 months ago
@Bllackguard666 52% of organic farmers use no pesticides whatsoever and the rest generally use less pesticides and more biological pest control like crop rotation, crop cover, predatory insects etc. than conventional farmers. USDA website states "Analysis of USDA and other data documenting pesticide residues on fresh vegetables and fruits shows that organic produce carries significantly fewer pesticide residues than conventional produce." nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/faq/BuyOrganicFoodsC.shtml
myndy86 6 months ago
@Bllackguard666 "Organically grown foods consistently had about one-third as many residues as conventionally grown foods""Conventionally grown and IPM/NDR samples were also far more likely to contain multiple pesticide residues than were organically grown samples. Comparison of specific residues on specific crops found that residue concentrations in organic samples were consistently lower than in the other two categories, across all three data sets." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12028642
myndy86 6 months ago
@Bllackguard666 The huge majority of peer reviewed studies suggest organic food is healthier/more nutritious. See my comments in this video for a dozen peer reviewed review studies on the subject. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of organic. The skeptoid, quackwatch etc. websites and Penn and Teller videos you got your misinformation are a *cough-marketingscam-cough*.
myndy86 6 months ago
@myndy86 Keep spending more money, believe the lies (What? Companies lie to fool stupid sheeple to make more money?! No way!) of the big businesses (who are laughing at people like you), and die anyway. At least I know bullshit when I research it.
Bllackguard666 6 months ago
@Bllackguard666
Try watching "Food, Inc.", taking a Nutrition or Chemistry Class, or providing sources on your claims before assaulting people w/ Generic Titles you don't Define. Would insulting you by calling you an uneducated, gun-loving, bloody thirsty, retarded, washed-up, overweight, ex-Army, conservative, hypocritical Christian, encapsulate you?
Shileikis7 3 months ago
@Shileikis7 I could do the name calling thing, too, but I won't stoop to you're level. I am simply showing how it's a scam, and if you choose to believe proof or not, that's up to you. Your insults are not welcomed, but they do show what kind of person you are. Only things I'm not: retarded, hypocritical, and overweight. Everything else, I am.
Bllackguard666 3 months ago
@Bllackguard666 You began with name calling when you called Natalie a "Stupid, Liberal, Moron". I was not "calling you names". On the contrary, I used a question to show how un-useful name calling is, in order to focus on Factual Evidence over Emotionally Loaded Content. Now, can you define what "Liberal" characteristics make Natalie "a stupid moron", and provide peer-reviewed sources not funded by a ThinkTank who gets their funding from Monsanto, to support your claim?
Shileikis7 3 months ago
@Shileikis7 The thing is I HAVE actual evidence there is no difference, and that this is a marketing scam. Put focus on me all you want, but it won't change the fact that this whole "organic" scam is funded by lobbyists that get big businesses to hop on this "organic food" band wagon. Evidence shows that there is no difference in organic or regular food, but PRICE.
Bllackguard666 3 months ago
@Bllackguard666 In these comments, I already posted like a dozen peer reviewed review studies and statements from the AFSSA and USDA stating that the majority of existing studies suggest organic food generally has higher levels of some nutrients and health benefits compared to conventionally grown food. Your so called "evidence" is probably a London School of Hygiene study which used questionable data from the 1950's and eliminated over 100 studies that found organic was more nutritious.
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 You stated evidence that supported by science? I'd like to see them. Umm...this "organic" movement didn't come into effect until 1972, so I have no idea (besides your ass) where you got those dates. And no, that is not where my sources came from. You have no scientific proof that it is more beneficial, in fact, scientific proof shows otherwise. Hey, spend your money, feed the scam; not my money you're spending, and I'm not the gullible one. Think whatcha want, hon.
Bllackguard666 3 months ago
@Bllackguard666 I already posted like a dozen peer reviewed studies in these comments, learn to read. LMAO! You didn't even read the full study from the London School of Hygiene did you? They used a study from the 1950's comparing what they claim is organic to conventionally grown food. Since you stated "Umm...this "organic" movement didn't come into effect until 1972" then you just admitted your source(London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) from your video is BS!
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 I guess you are smarter than a scientist, and their research. And all at age 25! Wow, you must be making a ton of money for your vast knowledge...errr....I mean gullibility.
Bllackguard666 3 months ago
@Bllackguard666 I quoted what scientists and research says, you just quoted 1 study I quoted a dozen. You got scammed by London School of Hygiene, when they reviewed 162 studies they found "Organically produced crops were found to have significantly higher levels of sugars, magnesium, zinc, dry matter, phenolic compounds and flavonoids than conventionally produced crops." food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/organicreviewappendices.pdf Then they eliminated over 100 studies to get a different result.
myndy86 3 months ago
@Bllackguard666 London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine study "The systematic review search process identified 162 relevant articles published, with an English abstract, in peer-reviewed journals since 1st January 1958 until 29th February 2008."
food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/organicreviewappendices.pdf You said "this "organic" movement didn't come into effect until 1972, so I have no idea (besides your ass) where you got those dates." That's you admitting the study you quoted is crap!
myndy86 3 months ago
@myndy86 Talking any logic to you is like talking to a rock. Have fun spending more for nothing!
Bllackguard666 3 months ago
@Bllackguard666 What logic? I quoted a dozen peer reviewed review studies suggesting organic food is generally more nutritious/healthier. You quote 1 flawed study that used data from the 1950's and even you admitted any study before 1972 is crap! If you don't believe the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed review studies and you choose to cling to this one study that even you admit is flawed, then it is you who needs to learn about what logic is.
myndy86 3 months ago
@Shileikis7 I went through all the pages, and I don't see where I called anyone names, so you can stop that game, too. Admit you're wrong and just eat the damn food.
Bllackguard666 3 months ago
organics......... A great way to jack prices up and rip people off for pretty much the SAME vegetable.
tehatemachine 6 months ago
@tehatemachine "reviews of multiple studies show that organic varieties do provide significantly greater levels of vitamin C, iron, magnesium, and phosphorus than non-organic varieties of the same foods. While being higher in these nutrients, they are also significantly lower in nitrates and pesticide residues.""organic foods typically provide greater levels of a number of important antioxidant phytochemicals (anthocyanins, flavonoids, and carotenoids)." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20359265
myndy86 6 months ago
@myndy86 OMG MESSAGE SPAM! PLEASE MOAR SPAM!
tehatemachine 6 months ago
@tehatemachine "Organic crops contain a significantly higher amount of certain antioxidants (vitamin C, polyphenols and flavonoids) and minerals, as well as have higher dry matter content than conventional ones.""there is a lower level of pesticide residues, nitrate and some heavy metal contaminations in organic crops compared to conventional ones." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17297755
myndy86 6 months ago
@myndy86 do you even fucking know what antioxiands do?
tehatemachine 6 months ago
@tehatemachine What are "antioxiands"? None of the quotes I gave mentioned "antioxiands", LMAO! I do know what antioxidants do, they reduce free radical damage. To put it simply for an obvious layman such as yourself, a free radical has an unpaired electron and can cause a chain reaction that can damage cells or even cause cell death. Antioxidants reduce this damage, depending upon where in the cell they are located they generally reduce damage to that part of the cell, etc..
myndy86 6 months ago
@myndy86 Good job for wiking that :D but oxygen still will wear your insides out. oxygen is also fuckign awesome. Especially when paired with hydrogen to drive the space shuttles SSME's
tehatemachine 6 months ago
@tehatemachine "For individual nutrients, existing studies show that organic fertilization practices produce crops with higher levels of ascorbic acid, lower levels of nitrate, and improved protein quality compared with conventionally grown crops.""Animal studies showed better growth and reproduction in animals fed organically grown feed compared with those fed conventionally grown feed." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9439021
myndy86 6 months ago
@tehatemachine "A review of existing literature reveals that organic foods compared to conventionally produced foods seem to have a higher content of antioxidants in plant products and a higher content of fat-soluble vitamins and omega-3 fatty acids in animal products. Animal studies (among them, on rabbits and chickens) show higher fertility and less morbidity in animals fed organically." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15195159
myndy86 6 months ago
@tehatemachine "A short review of such experiments shows that the majority of these tests revealed effects of the organically produced feed on health parameters such as reproductive performance and immune responses."" The science-based results suggest positive influences from organic feeds" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/203550 28 "Ecological food is tastier and contains more essential amino-acids, vitamin C, and micro-nutriments than usual food" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16610189
myndy86 6 months ago
@tehatemachine "1/ organic plant products contain more dry matter and minerals (Fe, Mg); and contain more anti-oxidant micronutrients such as phenols and salicylic acid, 2/ organic animal products contain more polyunsaturated fatty acids""4/ 94–100% of organic food does not contain any pesticide residues, 5/ organic vegetables contain far less nitrates, about 50% less" agronomy-journal"dot"org/index .php?option=com_article&access =doi&doi=10.1051/agro/2009019& Itemid=129
myndy86 6 months ago
@tehatemachine "Organic crops contain fewer nitrates, nitrites and pesticide residues but, as a rule, more dry matter, vitamin C, phenolic compounds, essential amino acids and total sugars than conventional crops. Organic crops also contain statistically more mineral compounds and usually have better sensory and long-term storage qualities." onlinelibrary.wiley"dot"com/do i/10.1002/jsfa.3000/abstract
myndy86 6 months ago
@tehatemachine "Organic crops contained significantly more vitamin C, iron, magnesium, and phosphorus and significantly less nitrates than conventional crops. There were nonsignificant trends showing less protein but of a better quality and a higher content of nutritionally significant minerals with lower amounts of some heavy metals in organic crops compared to conventional ones." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11327522
myndy86 6 months ago
I can think of a shitload of arguments against the points she makes, but just one is needed to blow all of her points out of the water: i've been eating 'non-organic' food for all of my life, so have my parents, and their parents... MY GRANDMA IS 80!!! & she still does house work and keeps up with her 12 children and the crazy amount of grandchildren and nephews nieces and so on and so forth... 'non-organic' and organic food aren't that different- the main difference is the price and yield!
Thebrainrahul 6 months ago
@Thebrainrahul I would bet your grandma's parents and grandparents ate organic or close to organic(no synthetic pesticides, fertilizers etc.). Therefore your grandma is benefiting from the epigenetic effects of organic. An International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition study found 2nd and 3rd generation rabbits from organically fed parents exhibited higher birth rates and more viable embryos. Infectious illnesses were less frequent in 2nd generation organically fed animals, etc..
myndy86 6 months ago
@Thebrainrahul The huge majority of peer reviewed review studies suggest organic is healthier/more nutritious(see my comments). Studies generally suggest organically fed animals live what would be translated in human years to about 10 years longer than conventionally fed animals. Maybe your grandma has good genetics(epigenetics from her organically fed parents etc.) and would live to 110 on an organic diet but on a conventional diet she would only live to 100 and would have more illnesses etc.
myndy86 6 months ago
@77ThrowMonkey Organic farmers use more biological pest control, instead of pesticides to control pests, such as crop cover, crop rotation, predatory insects etc. Do you have references that all organic pesticides require 7 times more than synthetic to be effective? That might be true if you compare weak organic pesticides like mineral oil, but I doubt you will find a study that suggests organic pesticides like Bt or Neem need 7 times more than synthetic pesticides to be effective.
myndy86 6 months ago 3
@myndy86 "such as crop cover, crop rotation" You did not just say Crop rotation did you? HAHAH so they do not rotate one side so it can replenish it's nutrients? WTF? dustbowl anyone?
tehatemachine 6 months ago
@tehatemachine "so they do not rotate one side so it can replenish it's nutrients?" HAHAH, No, they specifically rotate with a leguminous crop so as to enhance nitrogen content of the soil. "dustbowl anyone?" Crop rotation has nothing to do with erosion. However, chemical fertilizers do contribute to erosion because it causes decreased water retention of the soil and therefore causes an increase of soil loss due to water causing erosion.
myndy86 6 months ago
@CowboyDave07 Considering you are a pesticide "expert", I hoped you would have evidence to support the Penn and Teller video claim that coffee has 1000 times more cancer risk than pesticide residues. So, studies suggest coffee reduces cancer risk about 30% on average, yet without any evidence at all, you believe pesticide residue reduces cancer risk 30,000%? That`s just insane! I guess when you were talking about having blinders on, you were really talking about yourself!
myndy86 6 months ago
@CowboyDave07 If you don`t like the sciencedaily study, I gave you the exact same study from newscientist website. I could give you the abstract for the original study as well if you prefer, but it all gives the same info, yields were on average significantly higher in poor countries using organic farming. I also gave you several studies, so you complaining about 1 of them is hilarious, when they all had very similar results.
myndy86 6 months ago
@CowboyDave07 You won`t bother with me because you have been proven wrong and are too ashamed to admit it. You can try to debate the term "agroecology" all you want, but the evidence clearly gives the same yields for organic as it does agroecology. As I mentioned purchasing synthetic chemicals and fertilizers is a small part of the reason for the yield difference, you act as if that quote said the only reason is they can`t afford synthetic fertilizer etc., it didn`t, learn to read.
myndy86 6 months ago
@myndy86 nitrogen............. it must be synthetic because it is a chemical..........
tehatemachine 6 months ago
@tehatemachine Synthetic fertilizers have to do with the way they are processed, such as using petroleum coke gasification in the manufacturing process of some urea ammonium nitrate(UAN) fertilizers and other processing methods involved with synthetic fertilizers. Nitrogen itself, is not synthetic! You obviously don't understand the different definitions of the word chemical used in different regards. Next you are going to tell me all food is organic, LMAO!
myndy86 6 months ago
@CowboyDave07 Wikipedia is one of the most unscientific online "encyclopedia" sites on the internet. LMAO! Try reading the UN review study and looking at the references. One reference is a UN study "Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa" which is where the "average increase of 116% for all African projects." statistic came from. Read it yourself if you don`t believe me! unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted200715_en.pdf
myndy86 6 months ago
@myndy86 I'm not even going to bother with you anymore. Just keep shouting about how great agroecology is when it doesn't even singularly support organic farming techniques alone. Wikipedia isn't the only site that gives a clear definition of what agroecology is.
Not only that, but your articles are hilariously questionable when you get down to the bottom and read:
"The above story is reprinted (with editorial adaptations by ScienceDaily staff) from materials provided by University of Michigan"
CowboyDave07 6 months ago
@CowboyDave07 That was a UN report. Are you claiming the UN(who don`t profit from organic) is biased towards organic? Not being able to afford chemicals, is a small part of it, but there are more important reasons for the increased yields. Such as most areas in poor countries have poor access to water and/or have limited rainfall. Several field trials suggest organic can have almost double the yields of conventional in drought conditions even in developed countries.
myndy86 6 months ago
@myndy86Try using wikipedia before typing on the internet and looking like an idiot. In fact, you don't even have a clue on what agroecology IS!
First line in the wikipedia definition of "agroecology":
"...the field of agroecology is not associated with any one particular method of farming, whether it be organic, conventional, intensive or extensive. Furthermore, it is not defined by certain management practices..."
If you actually read the report, much of it has to do with inter-crop rotation..
CowboyDave07 6 months ago
@CowboyDave07 "in developed countries, organic systems on average produce 92% of the yield produced by conventional agriculture. In developing countries, however, organic systems produce 80% more than conventional farms." newscientist"dot"com/article/dn12245-organic-farming-could-feed-the-world.html ""agroecological projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80% in 57 developing countries"
srfood.org/index.php/en/component/content/article/1174-report-agroecology-and-the-right-to-food
myndy86 6 months ago
@CowboyDave07 "Organic farming can lead to increased food production -- in many cases a doubling of yields has been seen""for these projects: 116 per cent increase for all African projects" unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted200715_en.pdf
Agroecology study "with an average increase of 116% for all African projects."
srfood.org/index.php/en/component/content/article/1174-report-agroecology-and-the-right-to-food
As you can see the statistics for "Agroecology" are exactly the same as "Organic".
myndy86 6 months ago
I don't know why you people keep running to these "experts" instead of the people that ACTUALLY GROW IT. As for the African projects, of course organic produces more. They CANT afford the equipment for conventional farming. Lets get some un-biased links in here:
extension.agron.iastate.edu/organicag/researchreports/n-kleopold99.pdf
ag.iastate.edu/farms/02reports/ne/OrganicConvSystems.pdf
Stop living in fear of DDT, it was banned in the 1970s. We have much more refined chemicals now.
CowboyDave07 6 months ago
@CowboyDave07
"We have much more refined chemicals now."
Of, you like the taste of chemicals? I don't know about your taste buds, but commercially grown apples and strawberries taste like sh*t compared to organically grown. They also emit a chemical smell. Next time your at the store have the produce guy slice open a nice shiny, Frankenstein sized conventional apple and an organic apple. Take a whiff of them and compare. Take a taste of each (taste the organic apple first).
Pube83 6 months ago
@Pube83 Really, are you gonna taste that 1% chemical mixture PER 1000 GALLONS? I should know, I hold a state certified pesticide applicator license. You are more likely to get sick from the workers that haven't washed their hands while picking the stuff out in the field.
Rofl, taste test...yeah right. Check this out:
youtube.com/watch?v=8Zqe4ZV9LDs
Nice odds...9 out of 10 were fooled in a taste test. Go back to sniffing crack buddy.
CowboyDave07 6 months ago
@CowboyDave07
You hold a license...as if you're not biased! lmao YOU push this crap.
Taste, definitely. If you can't tell the difference, good for you. Shovel the less nutritious and tainted food in your gullet and be happy about it. I suppose you think factory farmed beef is as good as grass-fed? And that cheap eggs taste as good as organic eggs?
That Pen and Teller show is BS. The so called expert on that show Alex Avery and "The Hudson Institute" is a shell for Monsanto.
Pube83 6 months ago
@Pube83 You are an idiot, aren't you? That license means I know what I am dealing with when it comes to chemicals. Biased? Nope, just not a sucker for the organics craze. I've lived on a ranch my entire life and know what is in the CONVENTIONAL food I buy. What half of the world do you want to leave to starve to death when you figure out that you simply CAN NOT grow enough organically to feed them all?
Any evidence to support your claim against Penn and Teller? ...Didn't think so.
CowboyDave07 6 months ago
@CowboyDave07 Numerous studies suggest coffee reduces the risk of most cancers by about 30% on average, yet, Alex Avery in the Penn and Teller video states coffee is 1000 times more of a cancer risk than pesticide residue. If you believe the Penn and Teller video, can you provide me with a study that states pesticide residue reduces cancer risk by about 30,000%? ...Didn't think so. Go to the Penn and Teller Organic videos on youtube, I debunk most of their false claims in the comments there.
myndy86 6 months ago
@CowboyDave07 "you simply CAN NOT grow enough organically to feed them all?" You obviously didn't read the studies I gave you. "Organic farming can yield up to three times as much food as convnetional farming on the same amount of land.""in developed countries, yields were almost equal on organic and conventional farms. In developing countries, food production could double or triplle using organic methods." sciencedaily"dot"com/releases/2007/07/070711134523.htm
myndy86 6 months ago
@myndy86 How typical, reading only what you want to accept and putting on blinders when confronted with evidence that counters your beliefs. Try reading more than the first paragraph of your own "evidence"!!
"While that seems counterintuitive, it makes sense because in developing countries, many farmers still do not have the access to the expensive fertilizers and pesticides that farmers use in developed countries to produce those high yields, she said."
CowboyDave07 6 months ago
@CowboyDave07 Penn and Teller are magicians, their job is to trick you! Obviously that video was edited to make organic seem bad! For unedited results of organic vs conventional taste tests(not done by magicians) type "Organic or Conventional? (2 of 2)" in the youtube search engine, and type "Organic vs Inorganic Taste Test".
myndy86 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Everyone Visit This new Blog which Contains Infos A about All Types Of Healthy Foods It Still New , Plz visit and Help To Make it better WhyShouldIEatThis. Blogspot .Com
TottiLucci 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Everyone Visit This new Blog which Contains Infos A about All Types Of Healthy Foods It Still New , Plz visit and Help To Make it better WhyShouldIEatThis.Blogspot.Com
TottiLucci 6 months ago
@metalslugxBTB "Today`s scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live-especially in unfavorable environments.""To date agroecological projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80% in 57 developing countries, with an average increase of 116% for all African projects." srfood.org/index.php/en/component/content/article/1174-report-agroecology-and-the-right-to-food
myndy86 6 months ago